(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.04.12 2016가단11571

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.04.12 2016가단11571

건물인도등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b)payment of KRW 3,431,840;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 21, 2015, the Defendant leased, from the Plaintiff, real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff during the period from February 21, 2015, KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 260,000, monthly rent of KRW 2.60,000, and from February 21, 2015 to February 20, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From February 21, 2015 to February 20, 2017, the Defendant delayed 4,860,000 won (260,000 won x 18 months) out of the monthly rent of 18-years. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant delayed 351,690 won of the water supply rate and 400,150 won of the electricity rate as of December 15, 2016.

C. On March 26, 2015, the Defendant reported the change of the business operator in C with respect to the business report stated in the separate sheet, and possessed the instant real estate.

Of the Defendant’s overdue rent and water and electricity charges of KRW 5,431,840 ( KRW 4,860,000) ( KRW 351,690, KRW 400,150) the amount of KRW 2,00,000 was deducted from the lease deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on February 20, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, pay the remainder overdue rent and water supply charge of KRW 3,431,840, and to report the closure of business as stated in the attached list.

B. The Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 2.60,000 per month from February 21, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate. However, in the case of restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground of benefit without any legal grounds, the substantial benefit refers to the benefit. Therefore, in a case where the lessee continued to possess the leased object even after the termination of the lease contract, but the lessee did not obtain substantial benefit by failing to use it or make profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, it is so long as the lessee

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단237699

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.16 2017가단24053

-울산지방법원 2018.05.09 2018가단53858

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2018가단35682

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.01.17 2017가단10310